Looking at the Philosophy Project

The purpose of this post is simply to provide a holding area for ideas.

We shall be looking around at all different kind of stuff to digest it. The ideas shall first be discussed under the COMMENTS section. Anything pertinent will then be added to this post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.

As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus, “I,” or the self, is generated.

All knowledge, regardless of its source, should be consistent. When there is inconsistency, there must be something unresolved that is underlying that inconsistency. Spiritual progress occurs when one starts to spot inconsistencies as they come up naturally and applies mindfulness to them until they dissolve.

As one starts to look mindfully at an inconsistency, it may lead to a chain of inconsistencies. Just keep looking more closely at the inconsistency that is at the “top of the stack.” It is very important to follow the 12 points of mindfulness.

Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of property. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.

Everything about this universe is in flux. Nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. Yet this whole system made up of impermanence seems to be permanently there. How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?

Perception is there as long as manifestation is there. When manifestation is not there, there is no perception either. Thus, there can never be a perception of the state of non-manifestation. We would always perceive manifestation to be there. Ha ha… Q.E.D.

.

(1) An “identity” may simply be a tight “knot” of considerations that needs to be loosened up.

(2) The self is the “center of considerations” analogous to the “center of mass.”

(3) An identity may not affect the self if it is somewhere at the periphery of considerations.

(4) If the identity is closer to the center, it may appear as if the self is stuck with it.

(5) But there are simply a bunch of considerations knotted together, which needs to be loosened up.

(6) Being stuck is simply “some considerations locked into each other.”

.

There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:

(1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

(2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.

Such a reaction may occur in chain resulting in ballooning of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse such ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.

Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This starts to deflate the ballooning considerations. In other words, the ego, or self, gradually starts to dissolve.

One can never predict where this process might lead to.

.

At death, the body disintegrates into its particles, and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” combination. There is infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.

A self (being) seems to be simply a point of knowledge that outputs considerations. This provides a new look at what a THETAN is.

On OT levels one is trying to blow off disembodied beings (body thetans). This seems to be a highly anthropomorphic way of saying, “The purpose is to dissolve all inconsistencies in knowledge.” Thus, a BODY THETAN is nothing more than an inconsistency in knowledge..

Actually, that is what this whole Philosophy Project is about. It is starting as broad as possible in fishing for inconsistencies and dissolving them.

A bridge, such as in Scientology, is not really needed if one follows the points of mindfulness. Here are the relevant points:1. Look attentively at what is right there in front of you.
If there are many things in front of you, then start with the first thing that your attention goes to. Then look at the next thing, to which the attention goes naturally, and so on. If there are many issues you are concerned with, then start with the issue uppermost in your mind, then the next issue uppermost in your mind, and so on. Do not speculate. Do not go digging into the mind. Keep looking patiently at what comes up naturally to be scrutinized. Then observe it carefully.

6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
Let the mind present what to look at. There should be no digging into the memory. There should be no effort to recall. Simply look at what is right there in front of the mind’s eye. Let the mind un-stack itself naturally through patient contemplation. When that is allowed, the mind will never present anything overwhelming.

The only difficulty would arise when a person is unwilling to look. This is where the early Scientology Grade processes come in to make the person look in specific direction until he/she gets a win.

The moment a person is willing to look then simply let him/her get on with unstacking his mind using the simple directions provided in KHTK.

Guidance from another person is needed only when a person is very confused and has lost all his bearings. This is where the Objective Processing of Scientology comes in handy. It pulls a person out of introversion by making the physical universe real to the person. Now the person has some reality to hold on to while he tries to look.

Still some guidance is needed to get the person started on the path to looking. The person’s mind is racing and he finds it hard to control. Meditation may help but it is not very structured. Some people may need more structured guidance. This is where lower grade Scientology auditing may come in handy. This auditing may be continued only to a point that a person has some realizations, and he is stabilized enough to start looking on his own.

At this point, a person should be encouraged to start looking at inconsistencies that he finds in his life and environment. The KHTK approach is helpful here. Another person should guide him only when the person runs into difficulty, otherwise let that person get on with it. KHTK provides some exercises. To handle difficulties at this stage the IDENICS approach may be helpful. However, no further Scientology auditing is necessary. The person may simply get better and better with practice in looking at inconsistencies.

By the way, during all the above sequence, Scientology E-meter is not needed. All that is needed is an understanding of mindfulness. Scientology lower grade processes can be run more easily with mindfulness in a friendly environment that allows for discussion.

Engram running may require a bit of focus, but it becomes very natural if the KHTK rule of LETTING THE MIND UNSTACK ITSELF is followed. There aren’t many engrams. They just come out in the wash.

There is no separate OT case. From beginning to end it is the same process of spotting and resolving inconsistencies. First easier inconsistencies get resolved and the person starts to become more capable for resolving greater inconsistencies.

Thetan (being) is basically a point of knowledge. Suppose, we consider a PACKET OF KNOWLEDGE as an “object” then the thetan would be the “CENTER OF MASS” of that “object.” It is simply a convenient concept. Body thetans or more like “CHUNKS OF KNOWLEDGE” that are part of the whole packet of knowledge. The “chunk of knowledge” is simply not consistent with the whole “packet of knowledge.” That inconsistency needs to be dissolved. When that happens all the knowledge becomes consistent.

The following are ideas inspired by this post from Maria.
I have been looking at what “I” or “me” is. It boils down to something resulting from perception. It is the “center” of knowledge that has accumulated around a perception-point in space. It fixes the perception-point in space, so it becomes an “I”.

All “I’s” are connected to each other through perception and knowledge. Thus, there are inconsistencies that are common to “I’s”. There is perception and knowledge of bodies, which also precipitates down to contribution to the formation of “I”. And so there are inconsistencies connected with bodies.

Scientology tried to deal with the subject of perception and knowledge, But it made “individuality” the focus and got fixated there. “I” or individuality are simply points of focus just like the assumed “center of mass” of an object.

One needs to understand the “mass” and not merely get fixated on the “center” of it.

The placebo exercises are there to loosen up the “I” and reduce it back to a simple perception-point.
Perception goes beyond self, where the perception-point is not fixated as self or individuality. In this state the perception-point is fluid and ever changing.

Existence is what is perceived physically and mentally. It includes one’s inferences drawn from perception. It also includes self-awareness and self and its fixation.

If I were to put together an OT VIII process, it would go like this:
(1) “Is there an inconsistency?”
(2) (If yes) “Look at that inconsistency more closely.”
(3) Now, Is there an inconsistency?”

On Step (2), one would fully apply the 12 points of mindfulness. It may take as long as it takes. There is no rush. This step should be effortless. E-meter is not used. Actually, the idea here is to wean a person off any dependency on the E-meter. A dependency on E-meter would be an inconsistency.for somebody looking for enlightenment.

The concept of inconsistency is described in the KHTK Looking section of this blog. It would be anything that doesn’t make sense, or which one feels conflicted about.

The answer in step (3), may feed back into step (1), and so the process continues. If there is no inconsistency left in Step (3) then one starts anew with step (1).

Anybody who is stable enough to spot inconsistencies can start with the OT VIII process above. The step (2) of that process is as follows:

(2) (If yes) “Look at that inconsistency more closely.”

If on step (2), a traumatic incident happens to come up then follow the procedure given in APPROACH TO LOOKING #1:
(2-1) Locate the confusion (or the trauma)
(2-2) Locate the shift (a shift in oneself)
(2-3) Locate the shock (surprise or realization that triggered the shift)
(2-4) Look more closely at the area of shock and shift.
(2-5) Make sure there is nothing hidden or suppressed in that area.

This is a nice summation of SOCRATES:
“He had his own religious faith: he believed in one God, and hoped in his modest way that death would not quite destroy him; but he knew that a lasting moral code could not be based upon so uncertain a theology. If one could build a system of morality absolutely independent of religious doctrine, as valid for the atheist as for the pietist, then theologies might come and go without loosening the moral cement that makes of wilful individuals the peaceful citizens of a community.”

Good and bad doesn’t apply because these are considerations generated by the self. Charge itself means some sort of tension or stress due to deviation from more natural state.

The more natural state seems to be a perception-point that is not fixed at all, but which is completely fluid. Any ideas that are consistent seem to contribute to the generation of self by fixing the perception-point to some degree. The accumulated result of such ideas and considerations (that are relatively fixed in space) would be self.

Just close your eyes and see what is there. If there is any lingering concern, it is a sign of self.

Yes, agreed. I’ve experienced this sensation and one example of it since we are blogging about OT8 is the subject of Scientology.

First I leveled the inconsistencies by coming into harmony with those experiences. Then as I felt my experiences made better sense and were more consistent then I began looking at the Standard Tech of the subject of Scientology. As these inconsistencies began sticking out, I came to understand them better and to have a more consistent understanding of the subject of Scientology. Following this, I have ceased to create an experience of the subject of Scientology and that subject as a whole has diminished — become simplified.

It seems to me that handling mental travails might follow a progression such as this. Disharmonic mental noise can be “tuned in” until harmony ensues. To be fair to LRH, he has lectured similarly in several places. The main difference that I am seeing between many Eastern mental disciplines and Scientology is the exaltation of individuality in Scn.

I achieved a sort of a milestone with KHTK yesterday. Few months ago a Scientologist friend had asked me to work with his son who was really distraught, couldn’t study, had isolated himself and had almost dropped out of communication with his parents. I knew him as a child as I had given him some math sessions.

At first I was not given all the details and was told that her son needed help with study. I started sessions with him on Skype to help him with Science and Math. I got in communication with him and he specially responded to creative aspects of solving problems.

But there were other problems out of sight so no real progress was being made. I felt there was something wrong and kept prodding the mother because the son was not forthcoming.

Finally the mother told me about the seriousness of the situation. The son got suspicious that I knew something about the precariousness of his situation he ended our study sessions. Finally, he ended up taking a leave of absence from the University he was going to and returned home with his parents. He did not want any Scientology handling. He wanted to go and see a psyche. His parents were very distraught. They didn’t want any psyche history on their son’s health record. So they persuaded him to talk to me again.

This time we started knowing fully well that there was a situation deeper than that of study that needed to be addressed. He agreed to an Idenics session***. We did an Idenics session but he did not come up with anything that could be worked upon. What to do now? He was extremely private about whatever was bothering him..

So I took the KHTK approach. I told him that his privacy won’t be violated if I trained him on how to handle his situation. So we discussed LOOKING and MINDFULNESS. I gave him KHTK issues from my blog to study. We discussed the KHTK Exercise from Buddha about Mindfulness in Breathing. I coached him through it for a brief period and let him do it by himself. I Skyped with him everyday.

At first he didn’t believe that he would get anything out of this Exercise. I have no idea to what degree he attempted the exercise on his own; but I kept up the daily discussion on looking and answered his questions to the best of my ability. At least I was able to keep him interested. In between he got really discouraged and wanted to see a shrink again. But he knew he would have to give him details about his problem, which he was not prepared to.

Then I offered to give him Idenics session again. I told him that he does not have to give me any details about his situation, but he should at least look at it himself. Apparently, he was in a total denial about the situation. But apparently the KHTK Exercise helped him to move past that denial. This time he was really looking at something significant in the Idenics session.

We did a couple of Idenics sessions. I still had no clue to what his problem was. But he seems to be looking at something that happened about a year ago. He ran some feelings, emotions, ideas, etc. without telling me what they were. After that he wanted to contemplate over that incident himself using KHTK Exercises. I let him do so.

Still I called him daily, asked him a few questions about his relationship with his parents, because from talking to the parents it seemed there was a situation there. I had him look at that relationship with different perspectives. He started to look better and his communication also started to improve.

By this time he indicated that he had finally narrowed down the problem and that he was looking at it. He was willing to discuss it in most general terms. I told him about inconsistencies and how to follow them. As far as I was concerned it was a totally abstract exercise. I had no data as to his situation. But now he understood “mindfulness” better, and was getting better at applying it.

He called me yesterday and told me that he could let go of that incident (whatever it was) and he was feeling fine. He looked a lot better in his appearance and somewhat cheerful.

I have not been able to get in touch with the parents to confirm if their son is doing better. Without that confirmation I cannot say if I was able to bring about some improvement. But what I am trying to say here is that I was somewhat able to penetrate a wall with KHTK, that seemed to be impenetrable with other methods.

Well, I shall report the results as soon as I find out.
————————————–
*** What I have referred to above as “Idenics session” is simply guiding a person through the steps as laid out in

I find that KHTK approach of non-judgmental looking goes much deeper than either Scientology or Idenics techniques. The above case would have been evaluated as heavily PTS in Scientology. However, the KHTK approach seems to have produced a stable result in this case.

There was no earth shattering win that was voiced. But there was calmness and restored confidence in oneself.

Searching for the cause for every manifestation generates inconsistencies, because there is also the property of the “first cause”. I put “first cause” in quotes because it is a misnomer.

From the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

An irony would be an indicator of inconsistency. Sarcasm is similar but it adds invalidation and ridicule. Satire has the purpose of constructive criticism. But they all come about because of the perception of some inconsistency.

The purpose of irony seems to be to bring an inconsistency to attention by making it absurd. This is what Plato was good at.

From Dictionary.com:
Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn’t it?” made when it is raining or nasty.

Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form.

Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn’t play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.”

The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc.

Protagoras is believed to have created a major controversy during ancient times through his statement that “man is the measure of all things”. This idea was revolutionary for the time and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside the human influence.

The above depends on how one defines “human” or “man”. To me “perception is the measure of all things.”

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and contentious form is moral relativism.

Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense-data.

Phenomenalism seems to make sense to me.

Plato ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism, in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual. However, as it is clearly presented in the Theaetetus, Protagoras explains that some of such controversial views may result from an ill body or mind. He stresses that although all views may appear equally true, and perhaps should be equally respected, they are certainly not of equal gravity. One may be useful and advantageous to the person that has it while another may prove harmful. Hence, the sophist is there to teach the student how to discriminate between them, i.e. to teach virtue.

One doesn’t always perceive things as they are if one is looking through the filter of one’s considerations. As one becomes aware of one’s considerations and removes them as a filter, what remains is closer to what is there. But this is like peeling the layers of an onion. What is truly objective is always subject to question.

From Wikipedia:Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

Justice is the product of considerations. All such considerations are produced after the formulation of SELF. The “knowledge” produced by considerations is different from the knowledge obtained directly from perception.

There is mental perception of considerations too, but that is another layer of the “onion of knowledge.”

Thus justice is the product of considerations. Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of properties associated with self. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.

This seems to be a very fundamental question. What is justice?—shall we seek righteousness, or shall we seek power?—is it better to be good, or to be strong?

Plato points out that justice is a relation among individuals, depending on social organization; and that in consequence it can be studied better as part of the structure of a community than as a quality of personal conduct. If, he suggests, we can picture a just state, we shall be in a better position to describe a just individual.

Problem of justice lies in the factors that Men are not content with a simple life: they are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another, the rivalry of groups for the resources of the soil, and then war. Trade and finance develop, and bring new class-divisions.

“Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller ones—you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states”

A mercantile bourgeoisie arises, whose members seek social position through wealth and conspicuous consumption:

“they will spend large sums of money on their wives”

These changes in the distribution of wealth produce political changes: as the wealth of the merchant over-reaches that of the land-owner, aristocracy gives way to a plutocratic oligarchy—wealthy traders and bankers rule the state. Then statesmanship, which is the coordination of social forces and the adjustment of policy to growth, is replaced by politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.

.

This seems to be the case in USA today. We have politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office. We have wealthy traders and bankers trying to rule the state.

Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution.

When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease.

“Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power.”

.

I do not think this would be the situation in USA if we start educating people in reducing waste and becoming more efficient. The fundamental problem is knowing and using our resources more efficiently.

But even democracy ruins itself by excess… of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses.

“As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.”

To get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a popular play (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea). Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd do loves flattery, it is so “hungry for honey,” that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the “protector of the people” rises to supreme power. (Consider the history of Rome.)

.This is where we are in USA. If democracy fails, we shall be heading towards tyranny or autocracy. Educating the public toward greater awareness seems to be the only way out. This Information Age offers us the best opportunity. We have to make the best of this opportunity.

True justice seems to lie in removing inconsistencies without any fixation on the preservation of any consideration, such as, self.

For example, I am currently working as a consultant for a small company that is poised for rapid growth. I am looking at functions that need to be in place. I am training employees associated with these functions to get those functions implemented. In doing this training, I am very much aware of the capabilities and limitations that I am dealing with. I am not rejecting someone for their limitation but applying KHTK on the fly to help him or her handle that limitation. Here I am treating limitation as an inconsistency and resolving it regardless of who that person is. This is justice.

First cause makes the process of searching for consistency a futile practice.
There is no implicit “reason” for manifestation.
Why do you demand consistency from that which has no need to be so?
This is something you should apply your mindfulness to. It might help you cut the gordian knot you seem to have wrapped around you 🙂

FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]

.
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

Vinay, for me this fluid nature of the ” I ” is the harmony installed in the rest of the existence, a mirror of the created things by probabilistic combinations which are condensed in a fixed and statistical reality . The realising of this fixed statistical reality brings the ” I ” to the understanding of their probabilistic nature. imo

I just modified my comments about “I” as follows but that does not affect your comment.
A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.

As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus, “I,” or the self, is generated.

I think that I understand what you are saying. The existence is there simply because of the perception, and vice versa. Existence and perception are two sides of the same coin. There is really no perception point even. There is just a potential for it.

It is the inconsistencies among people’s desires and aspirations, and also with respect to their environment, that make it difficult for them to live together in harmony.

If we can only train people to start addressing such inconsistencies with KHTK approach, then what a fantastic society we’ll be able to create. This should be the case from top to bottom in a society.

Plato looked for a wise leader at the top. But such a leader cannot accomplish much without support from immediate subordinates. The president and the congress, both should be able to see things as they are and recognize the inconsistencies.

Plato: Underlying the Ethical and Political problems lies the Psychological problem. Ultimately, it is the nature of man that needs to be examined.

Human behavior flows from desire, emotion and knowledge. Desire is fundamentally sexual. Emotion is the organic resonance of experience and desire. Knowledge is the eye of desire.

Those who are embodiment of desire dominate and manipulate industry. They are acquisitive. Those who are temples of emotion (feeling and courage) care more victory “in and for itself.” Thay are pugnacious. Their joy is on the battle-field. Those few who delight in knowledge (meditation and understanding) lose themselves in quiet clarity of secluded thought. They are the men of wisdom, who stand aside unused by the world.

Now just as effective individual action implies that desire, though warmed with emotion, is guided by knowledge; so in the perfect state the industrial forces would produce but they would not rule; the military forces would protect but they would not rule; the forces of knowledge and science and philosophy would be nourished and protected, and they would rule. Only a philosopher-king is fit to guide a nation.

What is needed:
(1) The first turn on our road is universal education (do not use compulsion).
(2) Physical education and health be given the priority.
(3) Training in music and use of psychology should be the next priority.
(4) Education in mathematics and science should then follow.
(5) Within limits a libertarian spirit must prevail.
(6) A moral basis must be provided through religious education (must believe in God)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Plato is talking about his Utopia, which has good reasoning behind it. However, he is speaking in general terms only because he has no technology to bring about that Utopia.

Plato recommends religion and faith to keep baser instincts in check. Here lies his inconsistency. He wants to bring about wisdom but then he resorts to conditioning through religion.

Plato: Granted that none of the beliefs can be demonstrated; that God may be after all only the personified ideal of our love and our hope, and that the soul is like the music of the lyre, and dies with the instrument that gave it form: yet surely it will do us no harm to believe, and it may do us and our children immeasurable good.

Plato finds belief to have a lot of control and strengthening power. He thus wants God to be installed as a “super role model” and an “authority” that can punish and reward the individual. The idea of indoctrination is quite strong here. Thus, Plato looks for solution in God and faith.

Plato does not believe that minds could be developed simply by removing confusion..

I am trying to trying to read and understand the three laws of philosophy that I found here, but I am too tired and the site seems to be Russian. These don’t seem to be the ones attributed to Aristotle.

Vin: How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?

Chris: This question strikes at the heart of the “chicken or egg” question and is the reason that I am not currently subscribing to the concept of a “beginning” or of a “prime mover unmoved.” Man seems to be a part of the dynamic flux of universe. His main uniqueness seems to be that of being aware of himself in a troublesome way if that. The sense of impermanence posed off against permanence is a dichotomy that may only exist as a result of our imagination.

Written another way, THERE IS UNIVERSE. No qualifiers, no modifiers, no dichotomies, no paradoxes, no disagreements, and no “if, ands, buts, or justs.” Writing this is taking my best shot at non-judgmental looking. Every other embellishment beyond this strong statement is an additive, including all philosophy of every type including the subset of religion.

Without considerations the manifestations would be to us as the world must seem to the first-opened eyes of the child. So, there would be immense curiosity to make sense out of it all. There would be perfect ground to generate considerations.

Yes, these considerations, like primary colors, are more pure being unadulterated by consequential considerations. As the child grows, they begin to create secondary and tertiary considerations. These considerations depend for their endurance the underpinnings of primary considerations.

We look at what seems to be very complex to us. We try to simplify it. We try to find few common patterns (laws) that would simplify all that complexity. That is well and good. It reduces confusion.

But there will always be things that do not neatly fit those few known laws we have reduced everything down to. So, we must not abandon actual looking for these laws that help reduce our confusion.

We seem to be abandoning actual looking when it comes to Quantum Mechanics. We seem to be resorting to logic and mathematics alone. This will only increase confusion because, ultimately, it is looking that reduces confusion

In my opinion the most far reaching operating basis is

“See things as they are. If they fit your frame of reference (known laws) then well and good. But if they don’t then don’t force them to fit.”

You are onto something with that comment. But reality; what is most real seems to be segregated by the mind according to some priority that I don’t quite get. You said physical sensations seem to be more real than other perceptions and I see how you can say that. But this differs between people. For instance “delusional” (we call them) people don’t prioritize this way. Elizabeth Hamre does not seem to prioritize this way… Yet, this seems to be something we can benefit from exploring. Elizabeth, you should please take a look at this and let us know how you see it…

Plato introduces direct experience and looking at the end of his educational curriculum that has mainly been theoretical and imparted as indoctrination up to that point. This is inconsistent.
(1) There should be no indoctrination.
(2) There should simply be a presentation of all knowledge available.
(3) There should be emphasis on Looking.
(4) One should be encouraged to look and examine freely.
(5) Confusions and inconsistencies should be sorted out in discussions.
(6) Self should be understood as “center of considerations” held by a person.
(7) These considerations, which contribute to self, should be subject to examination as well.

Scientific questions in ancient Greece were addressed to metaphysicians, but by the 18th century, the skeptics’ How do you know? led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (what we know) and this eventually led to science (Latin, knowledge of) and its scientific method.

The only way to know is by looking at inconsistencies. An inconsistency is something that doesn’t seem to make sense. Inconsistencies would be different from person to person. A person with a closed mind, who seem to know it all, wouldn’t be able to find any inconsistencies in anything because he or she would have justification for everything.

Vin: Scientific questions in ancient Greece were addressed to metaphysicians, but by the 18th century, the skeptics’ How do you know? led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (what we know) and this eventually led to science (Latin, knowledge of) and its scientific method.

Chris: Yes, this is the newest, and to me, the best of modern religions. It is the one to which I currently subscribe.

You see, the oneness to which we bloggers subscribe seems to be based on an idea that underpinning our conscious centers is a common and greater consciousness. The greater consciousness to which I refer is the area which you say is unknowable. At that level there seems to be consistency.

After that, as consciousnesses appear, there seems to become individuality and with that individuality increasing inconsistency.

Now at the joined layer of these consciousnesses, at the realm of reality, we have epistemology explaining the world in a way to make it consistent at the physically real level that we call reality so that the reality can be made consistent. This is our science; our religion. Explaining to one another how it can all be consolidated and made not just knowable but consistent as well.

I’m still not comprehending the “dissolving until nothing knowable is left”… I see that as one’s disharmony decreases that harmony increases; plus the overall manifestation of knowledge increases — always a ballooning sphere…

I’m not quite following why use the word “dissolving” or else how are you using it?

What you know, you usually don’t think about. You just do it. Look at the knowledge you have in your profession, and compare it to the knowledge of someone just starting out in that profession. You are much faster than him because you don’t have to stop and think at every step.

This is what I mean by knowledge being dissolved. It is not that you don’t have the knowledge. You just don’t have to stop and think about it.

Chris: I do get the sense of what you write. But in fact, what is happening? Tuning in? Lessening of disharmony – non essential thought noise? De-fragmentation? All of these? Because we are more capable, it seems intuitive that there must be more of something. But there can also be less of non-essential and distracting fragmentation of thought. This last can account for your “dissolving.” So is there less or more or both or neither?

“Science, a branch of philosophy based on a standard of comparison, of measurement, leading to a generalized and reasoned conclusion regarding the natural world, with a high rate of reproducibility to support the claim.”

It is where that reproducibility is lacking even by 0.001 % that new truths will be revealed.

“The nature of Being is a perennial topic in metaphysics. For instance, Parmenides taught that reality was a single unchanging Being. The 20th century philosopher Heidegger thought previous philosophers have lost sight of the question of Being (qua Being) in favour of the questions of beings (existing things), so that a return to the Parmenidean approach was needed.”

KHTK believes that ‘being’ (verb) is ‘existing” and that depends on looking and perceiving. There is something to be looked at and perceived. Thus there is manifestation and perception.

All perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF. All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.Thus there is the consideration of SPACE. Perception primarily involves the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.

The entirety of EXISTENCE consists of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION. It is what is. There is nothing underlying it except PERCEPTION.

Reality is what is. Calling reality to be a single unchanging Being seems to be additional thought that is being added to what is..

All that is persisting is perception, but what is being perceived is changing continuously. And that is the actual reality.

“An ontological catalogue is an attempt to list the fundamental constituents of reality. The question of whether or not existence is a predicate has been discussed since the Early Modern period, not least in relation to the ontological argument for the existence of God.”

The fundamental constituent of reality is PERCEPTION, which may be considered to be made up of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION. That covers everything that there is.

“Existence, that something is, has been contrasted with essence, the question of what something is. Reflections on the nature of the connection and distinction between existence and essence dates back to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and it found one of its later most influential interpretations in the ontology of the eleventh century metaphysician Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Since existence without essence seems blank, it is associated with nothingness by philosophers such as Hegel.”

Essence would be a common pattern underlying constantly varying MANIFESTATION. That common pattern is PERCEPTION. Actually, manifestation and perception are two sides of the same coin. What is beyond them can only be speculated upon. That is what philosophers have been doing… speculation. Speculation hasn’t gotten them anywhere.

In a confusion the self (center of considerations) shifts from being one way to being another way. This shift may appear as a win, but it is still a shift, and an entrance point to resolving the confusion.

Spotting a ‘shift in being’ during a confusion helps one look closer at the confusion.

One is looking at an area where the attention seems to be stuck. When did a confusion first occur in that area? Was there a shift during that confusion? What material got suppressed around that area? What feelings, emotions and efforts seem to be suppressed there?

Take a closer look and experience what is there. Are there any suppressed ideas, conclusions and decisions? Look at them more closely. If they are yours then accept them as your responses. Be mindful of whatever comes up. Do not search for anything. Do not dig. Simply look closer and closer at whatever that does not make sense.

How does one get stuck? He is clinging to something he values. Let’s take a closer look at this.

He is clinging to it because he is unable to take it to a desirable conclusion. He needs to look at more closely what is preventing him in this effort.

He needs to look at what desirable conclusion he wants with what he values before he can let it go.

If it is continual ecstasy that he wants, then how does that thing, which he values relate to that ecstasy? How could it be turned into a continual ecstasy? What is preventing him from doing so? What are the inconsistencies present?

For me it is a misunderstanding based on there being a RWOT that can be corralled rather than a perception of my own which I can manipulate.

My oldest daughter was hard to “punish” growing up. By this I mean I could not “threaten” her with taking anything away from her — she wouldn’t attach herself to anything. In the end, she taught me rather than the other way around.

A WIN seems to be something that gave one a desirable result. To the degree a person desires that result again, to that degree he gets stuck with those actions that gave him a win. He repeats those actions again with the hope of getting the same desirable results. Such an effort may intensify if the desired results start to diminish.

Thus, one gets stuck with the action of auditing in Scientology. One then runs after somebody to audit him, or gets stuck with the mechanical action of auditing, or gets stuck with the use of the e-meter and so on.

All these stuck points gradually drop off as one sees that these things amount to simple LOOKING, and one can look without anxiety (see MORE ON MINDFULNESS).

Then all that effort dissolves and one simply moves through life effortlessly looking at inconsistencies as he comes across them.

Chris: “For me it is a misunderstanding based on there being a RWOT that can be corralled rather than a perception of my own which I can manipulate.”

There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:

(1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

(2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.

It is like a chain reaction.that results in continually evolving of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse this ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.

Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This now starts to deflate the ballooning considerations.

There is no substantial “you” that is clinging to anything. A “stuck you” is what appears to be there. But underlying that are “considerations locked into each other.”

One starts examining all the considerations to do with the area of stuckness. No matter how true some of those considerations seems to be, they are reexamined for inconsistency without being judgmental or biased, until they become loose and no longer interlocked tightly.

When working with a person, the best way to gain their trust is to be totally sincere in whatever you say to him.and then carry it through. He will trust you when he can see that you thoroughly understand his concerns and you are working to handle those concerns in every little way you can.

Be sincere in telling him what he is doing right, and where he can improve. Be precise in giving him instructions. Approve of him heartily when he does it right. Trust him with doing his part and give him credit for it. You take credit for doing your part.

I’ve been looking at this premise of “truth” for some time now and am tending away from the use of it.

1. The term truth seems to be rooted in a human desire for absolutes.
2. Truth is relative, conditioned and impermanent.
3. Inconsistencies are also disharmonic waves. The disharmonic is relative to another wave but possibly only within a certain frame of reference. Maybe we should concentrate on tuning in these inconsistent waves and simply bring them into harmony and not worry about any underpinning of truth.
4. Possibly the greatest truth we can achieve is harmony within a frame of reference.

(1) LOOKING starts with an unwanted condition. A problem would be an unwanted condition.

(2) Having problems may not appear to be an unwanted condition, But underlying those problems would be an unwanted condition.

(3) An unwanted condition would be a set of considerations fixed in place. It may seem that there is no way out.

(4) It would help if one could spot the beginning of that unwanted condition. But it may not be possible.

(5) Plato starts with the Ethical problem. It then leads to the Political problem. This, in turn, leads to the Psychological problem. The Psychological solution that Plato comes up with is the conditioning of the mind through belief in God and installing faith.

(6) Such a solution simply fixes certain considerations in place. Thus, the original situation of unwanted condition being “a set of considerations fixed in place” continues.

An unwanted condition can also be called an inconsistent condition. It is inconsistent because it doesn’t match when overlaying another condition. Looking provides the perception required to match pro-action with the perceived inconsistent and disharmonic condition so that that disharmonic can be brought into focus and then harmony.

My premise is that a person should be able to change the considerations and realign them so that they are consistent with each other and with the surroundings.

A person is actually the sum total of those considerations. So the ultimate alignment will occur according to some laws that apply to the considerations; and thus these laws also apply to the person himself.

This is where mindfulness comes in. Mindfulness is an approach which is free of logic. One lets the considerations level themselves by not interfering with them.

What will dissolve and disappear would be the inconsistency or disharmony. Of course, it is perception that tells you what is there.

However, at this stage of the game I want to fully understand all the various aspects of an unwanted condition.

🙂 “Framing” is constructing. “Identification with” is fixating upon; is anchoring into; is attempting to hold onto a single iteration; to make some aspect and time of our existence hold still. This is impossible to do. The more one strives to make one’s reality unchanging the more disharmony occurs.

Possibly mindfulness is the widening of one’s field of vision so that one is aware of and therefore tolerant of the roiling flux of Nature.

Gurdjieff claimed that people cannot perceive reality in their current states because they do not possess consciousness but rather live in a state of a hypnotic “waking sleep.”

“Man lives his life in sleep, and in sleep he dies.” As a result of this condition, each person perceives things from a completely subjective perspective. He asserted that people in their typical state function as unconscious automatons, but that one can “wake up” and become a different sort of human being altogether.

Does this mean that most people have heavy filters that never come off? Gurdjieff is saying that it is possible to just drop off those filters.

Instead of developing body, mind, or emotions separately, Gurdjieff’s discipline worked on all three to promote comprehensive and balanced inner development…

Gurdjieff’s teaching addressed the question of humanity’s place in the universe and the importance of developing latent potentialities — regarded as our natural endowment as human beings but rarely brought to fruition. He taught that higher levels of consciousness, higher bodies, inner growth and development are real possibilities that nonetheless require conscious work to achieve…

Gurdjieff taught people how to increase and focus their attention and energy in various ways and to minimize daydreaming and absentmindedness. According to his teaching, this inner development in oneself is the beginning of a possible further process of change, the aim of which is to transform people into what Gurdjieff believed they ought to be…

To provide conditions in which inner attention could be exercised more intensively, Gurdjieff also taught his pupils “sacred dances” or “movements,” later known as the Gurdjieff movements, which they performed together as a group. He also left a body of music, inspired by what he heard in visits to remote monasteries and other places, written for piano in collaboration with one of his pupils, Thomas de Hartmann. Gurdjieff also used various exercises, such as the “Stop” exercise, to prompt self-observation in his students. Other shocks to help awaken his pupils from constant daydreaming were always possible at any moment.

The Work is in essence a training in the development of consciousness. During his lifetime Gurdjieff used a number of different methods and materials, including meetings, music, movements (sacred dance), writings, lectures, and innovative forms of group and individual work. Part of the function of these various methods was to undermine and undo the ingrained habit patterns of the mind and bring about moments of insight. Since each individual has different requirements, Gurdjieff did not have a one-size-fits-all approach, and he adapted and innovated as circumstance required. In Russia he was described as keeping his teaching confined to a small circle, whereas in Paris and North America he gave numerous public demonstrations.

Gurdjieff felt that the traditional methods of self-knowledge — those of the fakir, monk, and yogi (acquired, respectively, through pain, devotion, and study) – were inadequate on their own and often led to various forms of stagnation and one-sidedness. His methods were designed to augment the traditional paths with the purpose of hastening the developmental process. He sometimes called these methods The Way of the Sly Man because they constituted a sort of short-cut through a process of development that might otherwise carry on for years without substantive results. The teacher, possessing consciousness, sees the individual requirements of the disciple and sets tasks that he knows will result in a transformation of consciousness in that individual. Instructive historical parallels can be found in the annals of Zen Buddhism, where teachers employed a variety of methods (sometimes highly unorthodox) to bring about the arising of insight in the student.

According to Gurdjieff, everything an “average man” possesses, accomplishes, does, and feels is completely accidental and without any initiative. A common everyday ordinary man is born a machine and dies a machine without any chance of being anything else. This belief seems to run counter to the Judeo-Christian tradition that man is a living soul. Gurdjieff believed that the possession of a soul (a state of psychological unity which he equated with being “awake”) was a “luxury” that a disciple could attain only by the most painstaking work of over a long period of time. The majority—in whom the true meaning of the gospel failed to take root—went the “broad way” that “led to destruction.”

In Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, Gurdjieff expresses his reverence for the founders of the mainstream religions of East and West and his contempt (by and large) for what successive generations of believers have made of those religious teachings. His discussions of “orthodoxhydooraki” and “heterodoxhydooraki”—orthodox fools and heterodox fools, from the Russian word durak (fool)—position him as a critic of religious distortion and, in turn, as a target for criticism from some within those traditions. Gurdjieff has been interpreted by some, Ouspensky among others, to have had a total disregard for the value of mainstream religion, philanthropic work and the value of doing right or wrong in general.

At death, the body disintegrates into its particles and the identity that was body is dissolved. Similarly, the thinking and observing part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another body plus living soul combination. There are infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know at the moment. But this seems to be going forever like complex cycles of a wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, It is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the perception-point separating from all surrounding considerations. This is called “giving up of all attachment” in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Paranirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into the primary manifestation, extinguishing both and moving beyond the laws of disintegration and reintegration. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.

It is not what arrives at Nirvana that matters, it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

In my opinion, all the above is apparency only. In truth, “cause” is the result of interactions between considerations at various levels as in a fractal.

The universe is what it is. “Cause-effect” and machine-like “action-reaction” are simply two different theories to explain it. These theories take the black and white approach. I see those two theories to be different points of an interminable fractal scale. So, there is neither absolute self-determinism as postulated for thetan, no is there absolute other-determinism, as postulated for a machine.

Thetan and “cause-point” are more of a part of black and white approach. The reality seems to be a lot more sophisticated. There seem to be a whole spectrum of considerations and interactions between them that have not been explored. There is a lot more that Buddha says here: THE STRUCTURE OF “I”

Yes, it seems that “something” is there. By the time we name it potential, we are already on our way to bias. Because by the time I called it, “it” in the previous sentence, I was already on my way to bias.

I was reviewing the scientific method and noticing that “interested looking” or maybe just “looking” is missing as a first or “zero” step coming before 1. It doesn’t make sense to me to assume that it is occurring.

It seems that there is first something there, and then one re-arranges that something. If one rearranges that something in such a way to to attract admiration, then that arrangement is said to have been accomplished with ability; or talent; or capacity; etc.,.

It is always a fantastic ability to set up a puzzle. And it is another remarkable ability to solve that puzzle. Just take a look at what it takes to set up a puzzle, and then for a totally fresh viewpoint to solve that puzzle.

I’ve been trying to understand Godel’s uncertainty and the question comes to me to wonder if the fact of “seeing ourselves within a set” and then wondering if “there is something outside that set” is important to resolving the question.

Yes, well I am sitting here within a set. But I am conjecturing about there being “outside the set” without a purchase to leverage the thought.

This is inconsistent to me. Does this inconsistency point to something “outside” or is my thinking just very flawed.

I can see this going either way but overall I am wondering whether this fact of maundering about there being “outside” something that cannot manifest . . . if it manifests then it comes “inside” and the moment is lost. Or else, there is nothing “outside.” This paradox points me to there being something basically wrong with the question that I am asking and possibly something wrong with the sense of “inside” and then “outside.”

No. Unknowable is a dagger into the heart of looking. It is the linchpin which holds this mental trap together. I live in the knowable where everything is. Nothing is unknowable. Everything is knowable.

Yes, I think this may be my point. I know that you are joking with me but if everything is knowable, and we totally take things for granted, and we can’t get one foot outside what we say is inside, then it seems to follow that our TOE’s — our explanations are tautologies.

Vin: That space may just be concentrated around one in the form of the mind. But one may be able to put attention beyond that space and find ideas that seem to be coming from elsewhere.

Chris: Then I need to know more about “attention.”

BTW, you handled your exchange with Marildi beautifully. I really want to congratulate you on both your demeanor and full answers. It was a tip top example of “how to blog” maybe ever. Each moment that I thought you would snap — give up — you did not. You seem to have found your second-wind for dealing with garrulous and aggressive blogging.

What advances a person is not the accumulation of knowledge, but the resolving of inconsistencies in knowledge that one comes across.This way one can handle any amount of knowledge without feeling overwhelmed.

Thus, one need not accumulate any knowledge in one’s head, but simply be able to reference knowledge as required. This is how one would be able to survive in this information age. One needs to spot and resolve inconsistencies rapidly. KHTK trains one to do develop that ability through mindfulness..

One may meditate on an unwanted condition, or something that one is clinging to as follows (use mindfulness):
(a) Is there something of value or importance?
(b) Is there something that must be preserved, continued, kept going, maintained, etc.
(c) Is there something that must be defended or protected.
(d) Is there something that must be prevented?
(e) Is there something that must be suppressed?
(f) Is there something that must be rejected or pushed away?

NOTE: If something comes up then look at it more closely. If nothing comes up then accept that.

If we can grasp that our interpretation of what is occurring around us is the only experience that we will ever have of the universe, then we can begin to be ready to know something about the universe.

Which might in turn be another perception. This is neither simple nor quick but I believe that understanding is fractal in its primal nature. Every philosopher of every generation may or may have worked this out.

The thing is, and this may be the greatest secret of all: the discover is personal and may ever be so.

To me, awareness implies interaction among considerations. Then there are also considerations about interactions among considerations. Then there are considerations about those considerations that are about interactions among considerations, and so on.

So, I don’t understand why one should stop at “awareness of awareness” and not continue to more degrees as in an infinite series or a fractal!

“Ice – water – water vapor” represent three different aspects of the same substance. This is a sort of spectrum or gradient scale. All three of these forms may co-exist.

Similarly, “body – mind – soul” seem to represent three different aspects of some fundamental reality. This is also a sort of spectrum or gradient scale. All three of them may co-exist. Parmatman may represent a still higher aspect, and matter may represent a still lower aspect.

Chris: Your comment is particularly interesting to me this week as I am looking at the set of, and the mechanics of religion. I don’t know enough about Hinduism and so take your word for it. I am curious how that concept of body-mind-soul is analogous to the 5 states of matter?